Earlier this year in history (Year 10) we touched on the White Australia Policy in History. Everyone in our class was appalled about how "evil" the White Australia Policy was. No matter how hard I tried to see it their way I just didn't get it.

The way I see it, why shouldn't a country have FULL control of who they choose let in? I brought this up with my teacher and he just shrugged it off while the rest of the class stared daggers at me.

The way I see it the whites the people they were letting in under the White Australia Policy would of made much better immigrants than anyone else. I believe they were mainly taking in people from the UK and Ireland. These people of Irish and English descent would of spoke English, they would have wore similar clothes, they would have shared the same, if not very similar religions and they would of had similar laws. Even Europeans apart from the Irish and English would make great immigrants for a white country, they would share some of the traits I listed above. Frankly I really don't see why we still don't have the White Australia Policy or some variant which incorporates Europeans.

The "White Australia Policy" was not and never was "evil". That is nothing more than a Critical Theory attack by a Cultural Marxist. I guess it also doesn't help having the word "White" in it's title either. . Seeing as how anything "White" is denounced as 'evil', 'hateful', 'bigoted' etc.

People should actually read the entire policy before saying ignorant things about it.

It was a good policy. Too bad the Fabian Socialist Gough Whitlam dismantled it.

Australia needs to re-instate it or a more 'modern' version of it. We'll see what the future holds.

Good job questioning your Teacher to. I'm beyond my school years, but If I could go back as a White Nationalist, I'd be 'challenging' my Teachers to.

Earlier this year in history (Year 10) we touched on the White Australia Policy in History. Everyone in our class was appalled about how "evil" the White Australia Policy was. No matter how hard I tried to see it their way I just didn't get it.

The way I see it, why shouldn't a country have FULL control of who they choose let in? I brought this up with my teacher and he just shrugged it off while the rest of the class stared daggers at me.

The way I see it the whites the people they were letting in under the White Australia Policy would of made much better immigrants than anyone else. I believe they were mainly taking in people from the UK and Ireland. These people of Irish and English descent would of spoke English, they would have wore similar clothes, they would have shared the same, if not very similar religions and they would of had similar laws. Even Europeans apart from the Irish and English would make great immigrants for a white country, they would share some of the traits I listed above. Frankly I really don't see why we still don't have the White Australia Policy or some variant which incorporates Europeans.

What do you guys think?

It's because there is an ongoing policy of White genocide, importing millions upon millions of non-Whites into ALL White countries and ONLY White countries.

The discovery of gold in Australia in 1851 led to an influx of immigrants from all around the world. The colony of New South Wales had a population of just 200,000 in 1851, but the huge influx of settlers spurred by the goldrushes transformed the Australian colonies economically, politically and demographically. Over the next 20 years, 40,000 Chinese men and over 9,000 women (mostly Cantonese) immigrated to the goldfields seeking economic prosperity.

Australian Prime Minister Stanley Bruce was a supporter of the White Australia Policy, and made it an issue in his campaign for the 1925 Australian Federal election.
“ It is necessary that we should determine what are the ideals towards which every Australian would desire to strive. I think those ideals might well be stated as being to secure our national safety, and to ensure the maintenance of our White Australia Policy to continue as an integral portion of the British Empire. We intend to keep this country white and not allow its peoples to be faced with the problems that at present are practically insoluble in many parts of the world."
Following the trauma of WWII, Australia's vulnerability during the Pacific War and its small population led to policies summarised by the slogan, "Populate or Perish". According to author Lachlan Strahan, this was an ethnocentric slogan that in effect was an admonition to fill Australia with Europeans or else risk it be overrun by Asians (which is ardently happening right this very minute).

Pauline Hanson:

Quote:

"I and most Australians want our immigration policy radically reviewed and that of multiculturalism abolished. I believe we are in danger of being swamped by Asians. Between 1984 and 1995, 40 per cent of all migrants coming into this country were of Asian origin. They have their own culture and religion, form ghettos and do not assimilate."

To think that this guy was a labor premier of NSW, how far we have sunk since then. Can you imagine "anyone" daring to say those things today let alone a politician. Political correctness is destroying us, as it was designed to do....very effective.

The Labor party has now become a criminal organization deliberately destroying the country to allow it to fit in with the global new world order.

Quote:

White Australia must not be regarded as a mere political shibboleth. It was Australia's Magna Carta. Without that policy, this country would have been lost long ere this. It would have been engulfed in an Asian tidal wave. There would have been no need for the Japanese to invade this country. We would have been swallowed up by the rolling advance of a horde of colored people, anxious to escape the privations of their own countries and prepared to impose their own standards on this country.

__________________

The amount of multiculturalism in any society is directly proportional to the corruption at the top of
a political system and inversely proportional to national unity.

The so called "White Australia" policy was aimed at preserving and entrenching Australia as a British society and "White" meant Anglo Saxon, it doesn't have any analogue in 21st century "Racial Communitarianism" of the kind spruiked on this site.
The obvious point here is that the decision to slavishly follow Britain ultimately led to immigration being opened up to non Whites, all this began in the U.K and the policy directions were influenced by moves in the "Old Country".
In reality we still live in the shadow of the U.K, Fabian reform is a very British tradition, yes there's a sort of cultural lag at play but where they go our governments still follow.

The so called "White Australia" policy was aimed at preserving and entrenching Australia as a British society and "White" meant Anglo Saxon, it doesn't have any analogue in 21st century "Racial Communitarianism" of the kind spruiked on this site.
The obvious point here is that the decision to slavishly follow Britain ultimately led to immigration being opened up to non Whites, all this began in the U.K and the policy directions were influenced by moves in the "Old Country".
In reality we still live in the shadow of the U.K, Fabian reform is a very British tradition, yes there's a sort of cultural lag at play but where they go our governments still follow.

I disagree there...
Under the white Australia policy came many non British (Anglo Saxon) people (Italian, Greek etc). This was post war where the policy was in full swing.

I have heard a lot of people immigrate to australia for working it seems to have good opportunities ive heard a lot of europe people go there i hope there is not too much non white who go unfortunatly i think there is some...

I disagree there...
Under the white Australia policy came many non British (Anglo Saxon) people (Italian, Greek etc). This was post war where the policy was in full swing.

I think you'll find there was considerable debate over allowing those above named "Black Races" into the country and that the 1901 act was gradually watered down from about 1949. Despite the utterances of the hard Left about breaking Anglo Saxon domination all the Australian politicians were doing was following the lead of the contemporary British administrations who by 1948 had welcomed the Windrush Generation from the West Indies followed a few short years later by the influx of Asians after the partition of India.
I always get complaints about my views on this topic but the truth is that there was very little change in the personnel in Australian politics in those short years of the Immigration Restriction Act, Liberal Reform was always their goal.
Nationalism and Nativism in those early days sat firmly on the Left, it's fine to talk up Jack Lang or Henry Lawson, they were the real deal but they have to be appreciated for what they were, socialists who modeled themselves on European radicalism and idealism such as il Risorgimento or the "Springtime Of The Peoples".